Piltdown Superman

Believers in universal common ancestry long believed that since humans and apes diverged ages ago, apes should be able to talk as well as humans. Well, they have had enough time, but it did not happen. What about environment? Putting young chimps with humans was expected to give chimps speechifying ability. Modified from a photo at Freeimages, original from  Jeramey Jannene Since that failed, hands at the Darwin Ranch fired up the rescuing devices, and it was decided that a passel of storytelling was in order. It was figured that the larynx was lower in humans than in apes, so the Descended Larynx  "theory" was conjured up (without any evidence supporting it). That supposedly made it possible for humans to make the necessary sounds that are heard in the world's languages. "Does that mean apes didn't have vowel movements, Cowboy Bob?" So anyway... We have seen that there are many factors involved in communication, and critters are just not des

The way most people understand science is often called operational  science, dealing with things in the present. This is contrasted with historical  (forensic) science, which uses things found in the present in an attempt to reconstruct the past. Which do you think applies to patterns in meteorites? Widmanstätten pattern in Gibeon meteorite credit: Flickr / James St. John  ( CC by 2.0 ) By the way, the distinction between these two types of science was not  "made up by YECs" as some anti-creationists asseverate. The distinction has been around for quite a few years . There is something called a  Widmanstätten pattern that is found in iron-nickel meteorites. Let's engage our think bones for a few moments. What do you have? A meteorite with a pattern. When does it exist? In the present, like us. How do those patterns with the long name form? That can be determined by other metals that have been heated and then cooled. Do these pattern in meteorites take millions o

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen It seems that the more people deny their Creator, the stranger things get. As we have seen, evolutionism is rooted in pantheism, and both of them saddle up and ride friendly-like with the New Age brand . (Nothing "new" there, it is just repackaged paganism.) Darwin's death cult is a big part of it. A hero of the anti-natalist movement is suing his parents because he regrets having been born. Interesting that he claims to be close to them, and the amount of money is "symbolic", because he wants to send a message. Apparently people do not ask to be born. This telegram just came in over the singing wire, pilgrim: they never do ask. (Tell me how anyone is supposed to do that. Tarot cards and other hocus pocus, I reckon.) It is a part of the global warming movement to reduce the population, and rejects the biblical teaching that children are a gift from God.  This movement should be flushed.   While that anti-natalist stuff is just p

Naturalists reject the biblical account of Jonah and the great fish out of hand. After all, that is a miracle and there are no miracles because naturalism.  Such a view is arbitrary, not logical, and only justifies rebellion against the Creator instead of digging deeper. Humpback whale image credit: NOAA (Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents) If you stop and think about it, there are many "miracles" that apply to whales. (Of course, miracle  is used loosely in this context, except for the many miracles involved in the creation itself.) Whales are not the product of evolution, but instead show the intricate work of the Master Engineer. A skeptic once opined about the so-called problem of miracles, saying that “enlightened” thinkers doubt the Bible’s supernatural events such as “the whale miracle.” But which whale miracle did he reject? Was he thinking of Jonah being swallowed at sea yet living to tell the tale of the “great fish”?1 Some assumptions need

While this post and the article linked below have nothing explicit or prurient, they contain adult concepts . Sensitive and younger readers may want to skip this one. Since Darwinism has given us many wicked social views and rejects the Creator, it is no surprise that evolution can be used to justify sexual promiscuity. Lovers , Konstantin Somov, 1920 Atheists may feel free to indulge in sexual abuse because they suppress the truth that God exists and is the final Judge of everyone, but they still must deal with laws and societies. Many claim that morality comes from evolution , which is foolish even on the surface. We have seen in previous posts how evolutionists struggle with ethics and morality. While atheists and evolutionists scoff at biblical Christianity and creationists, the ultimate truth is found in the unchanging Word of God. Humans may be classified by scientists as animals, but we are created in God's image. He has not only given us the Book to guide us, he li

People talk about information  a great deal, but if you study on it, that word is a bit context-based. We can gain information from websites, cyberstalking, watching television, from Number Six , and many other areas. When it comes to genetics, information is tricky to conclusively define. Credit: Pixabay /  Pete Linforth Creationists point out that many changes in the genome result in a loss of or change in information, then arguments ensue. Some even use viperine tactics to claim that, since we cannot define information to their satisfaction, it does not even exist. Oh, please! Evolutionists may use rescuing devices that information is added through gene duplication or other ways, but it is not useful information. It's there, and they have a huge mountain to climb in explaining where it came from in the first place. After all, they reject the Creator who made it all happen. As biblical creationists, we often like to point out that ‘information’ is a notoriously hard-to-d

"How much more riding do we have, Luke?" "About two more days. Nice scenery, though." "Lotsa rocks in nice layers. They sure do look old." "How do you know that they're old? You need something to compare them with, you know, and there are no tags giving their ages. Now let's get these horses some water." Credits: Grand Canyon from PIXNIO , run through PhotoFunia We are told that rocks, layers, and so on look  old because people assume  that they are old based on deep time presuppositions, but there needs to be a reference point. Rocks are rocks. Radiometric dating? More assumptions, and different methods yield wildly differing ages . There are people in my experience that look old because I also know people who are young. Here in the Kingston, New York area we have buildings from the Revolutionary War that look old near buildings that were constructed much more recently. (In Europe, you can see structures that are much older